Key Facts
- •Gheorghe Badelita (appellant) was convicted of six offences (common assault, threats to kill, criminal damage) following incidents on 18 and 19 December 2023.
- •During the trial, the appellant had a disruptive outburst in court, threatening to kill his wife and causing self-harm.
- •The judge initially directed the jury to ignore the outburst but later allowed it to be considered as evidence of propensity for violence.
- •The appellant was excluded from parts of the trial following the outburst.
- •The appellant argued that his behaviour was involuntary due to the effects of previous strokes.
- •The judge refused to adjourn the trial to allow for a psychiatric assessment.
Legal Principles
Judges have a discretion to manage the trial, including excluding a disruptive defendant, but must ensure a fair trial.
R v Jones (Anthony) [2002] UKHL 5
Bad character evidence (propensity) can be admitted under section 101(1)(d) of the Criminal Justice Act 2003.
Criminal Justice Act 2003, s.101(1)(d)
Courts must make reasonable adjustments for defendants with mental impairments to ensure a fair hearing (Equal Treatment Bench Book).
Equal Treatment Bench Book
Courts must take every reasonable step to facilitate a defendant's participation in their trial (CrimPR 3.9 (3)(a) and (b)).
CrimPR 3.9 (3)(a) and (b)
Fitness to plead requires only a limited capacity to understand the charges and participate in the proceedings (R v. Marcantonio [2016] EWCA Crim 14).
R v. Marcantonio [2016] EWCA Crim 14
Outcomes
Appeal against conviction dismissed.
The court found that while the judge's handling of the outburst could have been improved, the convictions were safe. The outburst was highly probative of guilt, and the appellant's behaviour was deemed voluntary despite his medical history.
Leave to appeal refused on several grounds relating to jury discharge applications and the discharge of a juror.
The judge's decisions were within his discretion and did not affect the fairness of the trial.